TDEE stories?

24

Replies

  • courtneyfabulous
    courtneyfabulous Posts: 1,863 Member
    Still have a little more body fat to lose but very close to my goal.
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,262 Member
    Still have a little more body fat to lose but very close to my goal.

    You look great!
  • courtneyfabulous
    courtneyfabulous Posts: 1,863 Member
    jemhh wrote: »
    Still have a little more body fat to lose but very close to my goal.

    You look great!

    Thank you!
  • deneenae
    deneenae Posts: 97 Member
    Still have a little more body fat to lose but very close to my goal.

    That's so awesome!
  • courtneyfabulous
    courtneyfabulous Posts: 1,863 Member
    edited February 2017
    deneenae wrote: »
    Still have a little more body fat to lose but very close to my goal.

    That's so awesome!

    Can't wait to see your before and afters! You can do it too! Don't forget to take those before photos.

    Edit- oh you've been at this for a little while already! Hope you took some at the beginning. Great job so far!
  • deneenae
    deneenae Posts: 97 Member
    edited February 2017
    @jemhh that's great you found what works for you.
  • deneenae
    deneenae Posts: 97 Member
    deneenae wrote: »
    Still have a little more body fat to lose but very close to my goal.

    That's so awesome!

    Can't wait to see your before and afters! You can do it too! Don't forget to take those before photos.

    Edit- oh you've been at this for a little while already! Hope you took some at the beginning. Great job so far!

    Ha! No I didn't take pics... I tried to avoid the mirror at all costs, let alone take a picture! I have been here for a while and I usually change my starting weight to keep me motivated. In total I lost about 50 lbs, but my profile now says 6. When I saw that big cumulative number, I started to slack. I know I have old regular pictures during vacations and stuff somewhere that I can use for comparison.
  • courtneyfabulous
    courtneyfabulous Posts: 1,863 Member
    deneenae wrote: »
    deneenae wrote: »
    Still have a little more body fat to lose but very close to my goal.

    That's so awesome!

    Can't wait to see your before and afters! You can do it too! Don't forget to take those before photos.

    Edit- oh you've been at this for a little while already! Hope you took some at the beginning. Great job so far!

    Ha! No I didn't take pics... I tried to avoid the mirror at all costs, let alone take a picture! I have been here for a while and I usually change my starting weight to keep me motivated. In total I lost about 50 lbs, but my profile now says 6. When I saw that big cumulative number, I started to slack. I know I have old regular pictures during vacations and stuff somewhere that I can use for comparison.

    Oh wow!! That's awesome!
  • deneenae
    deneenae Posts: 97 Member
    deneenae wrote: »
    OP u didn't get the gist of @kimny72 comment. She wrote that all the formulas eventually amount to the same number one way or another. For MFP's formula to work properly you need to add exercise calories back that is due to MFP calculating your current maintenance calories and then deducting 500-1000 cals off that based on your desired weight loss, this is how MFP creates the deficit- therefore if you exercise you should eat majority of those cals back ( as not to take a double deficit and go down in cals too much)

    TDEE also looks at your maintenance cals and your weekly activity then adds it all up together and then creates a deficit of 15% - 20% off that number. Bottom line is both formulas shave calories off if u want to lose weight and that is the bottom line to all these calculations : eat less move more taaaadaaaa = weight loss

    I got the gist thanks: More than 2 ways to skin a cat. I just prefer not to record exercise cals burned, the way MFP wants me to. Its a little too tedious for me. Which is why I do TDEE. I like having a consistent calorie goal so I'm not trying to run around and find an extra 100 (or what ever I burned) calories to eat. I set my calorie goal manually and record minutes of exercise, with cal burned as "1".

    So much this!!! It's so much easier to just know I have to hit 1960 calories per day, rather than 1500 today and 2100 tomorrow.

    As for results, I don't have super current photos, but I do have this...

    por2x13phs6k.jpg

    I thought I was the only weird one. Haha! That's amazing you are at 1960 cals per day and are so successful. Honestly, the biggest reason I weight lift is so I can increase my RMR... and thus TDEE.... So I can eat more... haha... YOU LOOK AMAZING!!
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    One comment and issue I've ever really got cleared up about using TDEE vs NEAT, and that is the deficit.

    Why do all the TDEE sites use -20% (or -25% aggressive) instead of a straight number deficit like MFP?

    So, for me, my TDEE is around 3,000 calories. MFP gives me ~1600 for a 2 lb loss and I do about 500 cals of exercise, of which I eat back 400. I'm losing a little better than 2 lb per week, about 10 per month. My deficit if I was using TDEE would be 600 or 750 (aggressive), resulting in a slower loss.

    Why the difference or am I missing something?

    As it is, I'd rather do the MFP way and lose a bit quicker. I just think I have to eat back all of my exercise calories, but my goal is to eat 2000 regardless of what MFP shows (resulting in my loss slowing down over time, and I'm good with that).

  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    there is really no different - the numbers should be approximately the same - I just like TDEE so I don't have to think about exercise calories - I just use the same numbers daily - but my workout schedule is pretty static and doesn't change much
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,879 Member
    edited February 2017
    One comment and issue I've ever really got cleared up about using TDEE vs NEAT, and that is the deficit.

    Why do all the TDEE sites use -20% (or -25% aggressive) instead of a straight number deficit like MFP?

    So, for me, my TDEE is around 3,000 calories. MFP gives me ~1600 for a 2 lb loss and I do about 500 cals of exercise, of which I eat back 400. I'm losing a little better than 2 lb per week, about 10 per month. My deficit if I was using TDEE would be 600 or 750 (aggressive), resulting in a slower loss.

    Why the difference or am I missing something?

    As it is, I'd rather do the MFP way and lose a bit quicker. I just think I have to eat back all of my exercise calories, but my goal is to eat 2000 regardless of what MFP shows (resulting in my loss slowing down over time, and I'm good with that).

    When you set up your goals in MFP, it suggests a one pound loss - probably the TDEE calculators use it because it is a safe reasonable rate.

    After you've read a thousand or so 1200 calorie threads you might start to think it's a matter of keeping it simple, as well. MFP allows a lot more fine-tuning, which is good and bad. Requires people to think a bit more, which seems to be usually a bad thing.
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,262 Member
    One comment and issue I've ever really got cleared up about using TDEE vs NEAT, and that is the deficit.

    Why do all the TDEE sites use -20% (or -25% aggressive) instead of a straight number deficit like MFP?

    So, for me, my TDEE is around 3,000 calories. MFP gives me ~1600 for a 2 lb loss and I do about 500 cals of exercise, of which I eat back 400. I'm losing a little better than 2 lb per week, about 10 per month. My deficit if I was using TDEE would be 600 or 750 (aggressive), resulting in a slower loss.

    Why the difference or am I missing something?

    As it is, I'd rather do the MFP way and lose a bit quicker. I just think I have to eat back all of my exercise calories, but my goal is to eat 2000 regardless of what MFP shows (resulting in my loss slowing down over time, and I'm good with that).

    Using a percentage scales with TDEE, which means that it better takes into consideration a person's size and body composition. In my experience, a 20% deficit is sufficient for comfortable sustainable progress rather than miserable I-feel-like-crap-when-will-it-end progress.
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    jemhh wrote: »
    One comment and issue I've ever really got cleared up about using TDEE vs NEAT, and that is the deficit.

    Why do all the TDEE sites use -20% (or -25% aggressive) instead of a straight number deficit like MFP?

    So, for me, my TDEE is around 3,000 calories. MFP gives me ~1600 for a 2 lb loss and I do about 500 cals of exercise, of which I eat back 400. I'm losing a little better than 2 lb per week, about 10 per month. My deficit if I was using TDEE would be 600 or 750 (aggressive), resulting in a slower loss.

    Why the difference or am I missing something?

    As it is, I'd rather do the MFP way and lose a bit quicker. I just think I have to eat back all of my exercise calories, but my goal is to eat 2000 regardless of what MFP shows (resulting in my loss slowing down over time, and I'm good with that).

    Using a percentage scales with TDEE, which means that it better takes into consideration a person's size and body composition. In my experience, a 20% deficit is sufficient for comfortable sustainable progress rather than miserable I-feel-like-crap-when-will-it-end progress.

    But at 2000 calories, I don't feel like crap. Fit in wine, small bag of chips etc.

    It just seems to me the TDEE calculators are more conservative than other rules of thumb (1% of weight, MFP etc.) and am wondering if that just is or if I've missed something.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,879 Member
    deneenae wrote: »
    I wanna know what kind of experience people have using the TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) minus 20% method. I'm amazed at how anyone can eat 1200 cals a day and still work out for an hour... As is the case with a lot of people in my group of MFP friends. I believe in not exhausting/punishing yourself and I wanna be healthy about losing weight. It'd be refreshing to know there are people out there doing the TDEE method.

    Just FYI I am 5'6", female, currently 183lbs, and workout 30-40 mins 4-5x a week (2x strength and 2-3x cardio). Been working out like that for a few years consistently, but not really for weight loss. It just makes me feel better, mentally. Now I actually do wanna lose weight.

    I had a BodPod assessment this week and they calculated my RMR as 1400 cals and my TDEE as 2145 cals to maintain. My body fat is 41%. So I'm eating about 1800 cals to lose and that's the calculation for a "lightly active" person. With what I do in the gym, I'm not sure if I should bump myself up to an "active" person. My TDEE would then be 2455 to maintain, but even with 20% less that seems like a lot of food... But if I can eat more, then that's cool too.

    So tell me your story!! Any advice for me is welcome too. =)

    The two methods are 6 of 1 if you're doing it right and comparing apples to apples rate of loss targets...the only difference between the two methods is where you account for exercise.
  • SmartAlec03211988
    SmartAlec03211988 Posts: 1,896 Member
    My TDEE is 14.35 x body weight. So when I want to cut, I just take 14.35 x body weight then subtract 15%. Weight comes off.
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,262 Member
    jemhh wrote: »
    One comment and issue I've ever really got cleared up about using TDEE vs NEAT, and that is the deficit.

    Why do all the TDEE sites use -20% (or -25% aggressive) instead of a straight number deficit like MFP?

    So, for me, my TDEE is around 3,000 calories. MFP gives me ~1600 for a 2 lb loss and I do about 500 cals of exercise, of which I eat back 400. I'm losing a little better than 2 lb per week, about 10 per month. My deficit if I was using TDEE would be 600 or 750 (aggressive), resulting in a slower loss.

    Why the difference or am I missing something?

    As it is, I'd rather do the MFP way and lose a bit quicker. I just think I have to eat back all of my exercise calories, but my goal is to eat 2000 regardless of what MFP shows (resulting in my loss slowing down over time, and I'm good with that).

    Using a percentage scales with TDEE, which means that it better takes into consideration a person's size and body composition. In my experience, a 20% deficit is sufficient for comfortable sustainable progress rather than miserable I-feel-like-crap-when-will-it-end progress.

    But at 2000 calories, I don't feel like crap. Fit in wine, small bag of chips etc.

    It just seems to me the TDEE calculators are more conservative than other rules of thumb (1% of weight, MFP etc.) and am wondering if that just is or if I've missed something.

    Well good for you. Other people are uncomfortable at 2000 calories. If you were a woman with a 2200 TDEE, you likely would feel like crap trying to eat only 1200 calories while maintaining the activity level required to burn 2200 calories per day. You might even feel like crap eating 1700 calories while maintaining that activity level (*waves arm in the air*.)

    Different strokes for different folks.

  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    jemhh wrote: »
    jemhh wrote: »
    One comment and issue I've ever really got cleared up about using TDEE vs NEAT, and that is the deficit.

    Why do all the TDEE sites use -20% (or -25% aggressive) instead of a straight number deficit like MFP?

    So, for me, my TDEE is around 3,000 calories. MFP gives me ~1600 for a 2 lb loss and I do about 500 cals of exercise, of which I eat back 400. I'm losing a little better than 2 lb per week, about 10 per month. My deficit if I was using TDEE would be 600 or 750 (aggressive), resulting in a slower loss.

    Why the difference or am I missing something?

    As it is, I'd rather do the MFP way and lose a bit quicker. I just think I have to eat back all of my exercise calories, but my goal is to eat 2000 regardless of what MFP shows (resulting in my loss slowing down over time, and I'm good with that).

    Using a percentage scales with TDEE, which means that it better takes into consideration a person's size and body composition. In my experience, a 20% deficit is sufficient for comfortable sustainable progress rather than miserable I-feel-like-crap-when-will-it-end progress.

    But at 2000 calories, I don't feel like crap. Fit in wine, small bag of chips etc.

    It just seems to me the TDEE calculators are more conservative than other rules of thumb (1% of weight, MFP etc.) and am wondering if that just is or if I've missed something.

    Well good for you. Other people are uncomfortable at 2000 calories. If you were a woman with a 2200 TDEE, you likely would feel like crap trying to eat only 1200 calories while maintaining the activity level required to burn 2200 calories per day. You might even feel like crap eating 1700 calories while maintaining that activity level (*waves arm in the air*.)

    Different strokes for different folks.

    I get that, and it's not really my question. More like why does the TDEE calc use a % reduction vs. just saying 500 cals less for 1 lb loss?